Bullshit. The reason is because we have gone up against (in some cases) superior planes flown by (always) inferior pilots.

Electronics plays a role as always, but head to head in a 60 mile radius the Russians, despite their sorry current state of military affairs, would dominate us.

 

The bullshit is in getting within 60 miles. Telling half the story gives the wrong impression. I assume you actually know better.

RED

 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by PilotKD

 

I'm not sure I understand. The Russians have had superior electronics systems for some time in the target acquisition and shoot down arena. Getting within 100 or 50 miles is a very real possiblity given the proper approach.

Some of the red flag 18 vs 29 (not even their latest and greatest) results speak for themselves. Anywhere within 50 miles and the 29's simply dominated.

The reality is that any country with half a brain and a little equipment would first shoot down our AWACs, then take out our tankers, and then make us look like the outclassed asses we really are.

We continue to pick on folks smaller than us, which is the single reason our success rate is what it is. It is unfortunate that we have such a strong PR campaign (movies, videogames etc), otherwise the U.S. population might catch on that we have been behind in terms of air superiority for the past 25 years.

Instead you read through threads like this where folks make claims that are simply incorrect, through no fault of their own mind you -- they have simply been distracted or misinformed.

We have been copying Russian engine designs for the past 25 years. That alone says it all.

 

If that were true, then the Russians would not have selected Western engines for the jetliner airframes they are now building in Russia.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by steve c

 

Don't believe everything you read on Web forums.

I only know Steve through what I

 

Steve, you draw conclusions that I cannot draw. Yes, the Soviets lead in some areas, and Russia continues to lead in some areas, but who stole what from who only tells a story of jumping to unreachable conclusions. Let's look at publicly available information that is still fresh in everyone's mind. Iraq bought GPS jammers from Russia. Did they foil our attack on Baghdad? It would *appear* that our GPS technology was unaffected by their jamming technology, and that is what has been reported on places like CNN. The reason given for the failure of the jammers was that the GPS guidance systems have the antenna in the back so that it can't be jammed from a jammer out in front. Whether that is a cover story, or the real reason, you can bet that it was not just a matter of luck. We had a superior technology. The technology they developed to jam it doesn't work, because we saw it coming, and designed a system that it would not affect. It isn't as simple as the location of the antenna either, but we walk a thin line if we go anywhere other than what we've seen on CNN. It doesn't matter why, it all took place in public, and the world knows that Russian jamming technology fell on its face against our "GPS guided weapons." As far as aircraft go, the Russians have an approach that is entirely unlike ours, and comparing single or a few areas of technology does not paint a complete picture. Concluding that the source of an idea is ahead in the technology is totally unsupportable. We steal, then refine. So does everyone else. He who steals and refines the best, wins. Having almost unlimited tax dollars helps (or not).

I hear what you are saying, and some of the points you raise are things people in the industry still debate; however, some of your conclusions aren't easily supportable. The Germans are not ahead in rocket science, and the Russians are not ahead in electronics, in the most general meaning of the term. They ARE ahead in a number of specific areas, some of which we aren't even concerned with (meaning that they have a lead by default). I would actually argue that the Russians have an overall approach that is (at least potentially) superior to ours. I have rarely if ever found any of their approaches to be too far off the mark. They have simply done things differently because they don't approach the problems the same way we do. The situation almost parallels digital and analog audio. Digital audio is far more complex, and offers many advantages, but analog audio is simple and can be highly refined. If simplicity is a virtue (and most engineers would agree that the best solution is often the simplest solution), then it could be argued that the Russians have always had an edge. They use simpler solutions that often amaze us with their simplicity. At this point in our history, the military-industrial complex seems to be so obsessed with technology (after all, creating it is their business) that we have (in my opinion) let some of our war-technologies spiral out of control. Perhaps you and I are actually more in agreement than I've realized.

I certainly agree that we are behind the Russians in some areas, and I also agree that we write our history (and report our news) in a way that tends to paint an unrealistic picture. Skepticism is certainly warranted, and more to the point (I think), it is fully justified. We really can't go by what we read or see on the news, because it is all based on limited information (which is often biased to make things look a little different than they actually are). We are suppose to believe this stuff, so it doesn't bother me to admit that in 1971, when I was told that the SR-71 was a new aircraft, I assumed that the "71" in the designation was related to the fact that the plane was new. Of course, I did wonder if the bird might not be older, but there was no way to know for sure until the information became available (and I got a chance to see it). I don't think anyone is trying to scold anyone else for not being aware of some things; let he who knows it all correct me if I'm wrong. Yes Steve, I agree that the info we have is both limited, and biased toward painting a specific picture.

I also agree that at this point in time, we are not doing a great job with our weapons system development in this country. Our system has become bloated in inefficient. Many of the products it produces are bloated and inefficient. I can think of no better example of the problem(s) than the F-22, unless perhaps it is the Abrams Tank, but the problem(s) aren't limited to just a couple projects that have gotten out of control. It is deeply rooted in the culture of our military-industrial complex, and to some extent it is a bureaucracy that was born of bureaucracy. The F-22 is a manifestation of bureaucratic engineering. It is itself a bureaucracy.

You are correct in concluding that we hide our failures and shortcomings and bias our news and history to that end. Skepticism is healthy, but when it is taken too far, it can lead to sweeping conclusions that have no real merit, and in some cases it can even lead to paranoia. Just because we read about some stuff where our nation is behind in a few areas does not mean that we are behind in every area. Just because we steal the best technologies when someone else develops them first does not mean that we do not take what we have stolen and advanced it beyond those we stole it from. Again, Germany isn't ahead in rocket science, so being originator doesn't insure a sustained lead. The F-22, for all its flaws, has a RADAR profile that is classified, but it has been said (accurately) that we can think in terms of a humming bird or a bee. The amount of energy required to spoof the profile of a humming bird is miniscule, and in that kind of environment, target acquisition RADAR is close to useless. We're talking VGPO's in the nano-watt range. The F-15 can carry equipment that can just as easily swamp even its massive RADAR signature. Do you think we are ahead, or behind, in EW? On what grounds do you feel competent to say whether or not we are ahead, or behind, in that area? I believe you are drawing some conclusions that are based on information that is too limited. It does not matter whether or not I personally have the information, but only whether or not you have it. There are numbered projects that I know absolutely nothing about, so I have know way of knowing whether your conclusions have support that you cannot make public. However, based on what I know, I find some of the conclusions impossible to accept. I'd like to know if you are speaking from the perspective of someone working a numbered project or with some other source of information that is available only to those with a need-to-know, because for all I know, your work may give you a need-to-know some things the rest of us have no way of knowing. If that's the case, just say so, and the debate is yours.

Based on what I've had a "need-to-know" over the years, I believe that you are reading quite a lot, and adopting a position of justified skepticism. However, it appears that you may go a little to far with it, and draw some conclusions that don't actually follow from the case you present. We have the most advanced C&C systems in the world. We did our VISIC insertion 15 years ago. Where do the Russians get VLSI chips? We can debate the virtue of the approach, but it doesn't make sense to say in a blanket statement that we are behind them when it comes to electronics. To say that they are ahead in jet engine development because we've stolen their best ideas is to draw a conclusion that cannot be drawn, unless we can use the same logic to show that the Germans are ahead in rocket science. Since your arguments don't seem to support your conclusions, I would like to know if they are based on something more, something you cannot discuss. How about a direct answer?


If you want to discuss the value of acquisition RADAR we have to discuss both active and passive stealth. Do you think we can do that on a public forum (or for that matter, anywhere other than in an NSA approved meeting location)? If you think we can, I disagree, so we can't, and you're wrong. j/k I guess if you do I could ask you how the Russian RADAR deals with an array of active and passive stealth issues. Do you think that if you know or knew the answers, you could post them? Do you see my point?

If you can say that you know what you have said is correct, based on hard facts to which you alone (among this group) have access, then the matter is settled. You win, but you have to discuss the fact that you have information that you cannot disclose. Based on information that I can disclose, your conclusions don't hold much water, so if they have support that must remain in the shadows, I'd like to know.

Any nation who is stupid enough to follow your advice will find that taking out our C&C aircraft has been well and thoroughly anticipated. You must really think that we are STUPID. If so, do what Saddam Hussein did, beat on your chest and tell us how you will kick our @$$, until you provoke one of our Presidents into pulling the trigger. Then you can try to take out whatever you like. Sometimes you may get lucky, but if you believe that Steve here represents the thinking of the people who are looking after our national defense, you may dive into more than you expect. Steve, you are handing out some really bogus and misguided advice here. You seem to think that we let our large C&C birds fly around without giving them due protection. That is nothing short of ridiculous. A conclusion as sound as the one regarding being first meaning that one is in the lead. Starting on the pole does not give one the race. Germany is not ahead in rocketry, so you need to take a look at the way you are drawing your conclusions. You seem to be looking for holes, and of course you will find them, but then you seem to stop looking, satisfied to have found a hole. You don